Comments on: The Heckler’s Defense

By: cl

cl — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:38:30 +0000

Freidenker,

Done.

By: Freidenker

Freidenker — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:50:17 +0000

I wrote once that cl was unjustifiably treated in this blog and slightly ambushed, and I’m quoted on his blog saying that

I would like that quote taken off

and I take my words back.

By: cl

cl — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:33:35 +0000

Still, it’s time to get back to our regularly scheduled discussion. (DD)

Indeed. Yet another response here.

By: Hunt

Hunt — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:24:48 +0000

I think it is entirely possible that some (most?) people base their beliefs/views on emotion, which is to say they don’t really ‘base’ them on anything at all. To them, there is no conflict as long as no one is breaking whatever arbitrary rules their sub-culture happens to have accepted. Logic and reason are misunderstood obstacles to them, not something they understand but choose to ignore.

I think people base their beliefs primarily on a gestalt view that is perhaps totally inaccessible to them. Ultimately I think you have to accept the view of evolutionary psychology, that people “believe,” in any given circumstance, that which will propels their genes more propitiously into future generations. If that means ascribing malicious intent to a sound you hear in the grass (a lion?) then so be it. How well do any of us deconstruct what we believe? You can’t trust unexamined belief; that’s the heart of skepticism.

By: ThatOtherGuy

ThatOtherGuy — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 05:27:05 +0000

You mean the overly verbose pedantic million-word posts are going to go away? Oh frabjous day, callooh, callay.

By: Deacon Duncan

Deacon Duncan — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:20:52 +0000

GaySolomon —

You did suggest something like that, didn’t you.

Believe it or not, though, I did have a use for that sort of input, and I’ve actually got quite a bit of good material out of some of the dialog that’s taken place in the past few months. I appreciate the patience with which you all have tolerated the imposition in the interim. It hasn’t been easy, I know, though I think it has gone extremely well, all things considered. Still, it’s time to get back to our regularly scheduled discussion. To everything there is a season, as it says in some book I read once upon a time, and the season for trolling is over.

By: jim

jim — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:53:51 +0000

Duncan:

Good piece. I linked it to my blog…thanks! It’s always nice when somebody else does the work. LOL!

By: John Morales

John Morales — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:51:29 +0000

GaySolomon, I’m of the opinion (as this very post demonstrates) that DD was and is fully aware of the situation.

By: GaySolomon

GaySolomon — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:49:30 +0000

Hmmmmmm…

I believe that I suggested quite a while ago that a certain someone was likely a highly evolved troll, and that perhaps feeding it would only encourage to hang around the place and foul it up

By: cl

cl — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:27:17 +0000

Moved to the forums

By: Deacon Duncan

Deacon Duncan — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:49:51 +0000

I’m willing to make allowances for a certain lack of self-awareness, and indulge someone—even a troll—for long enough that they have a chance either to demonstrate some hope of reasonability or else to prove that such hopes are unlikely to see fulfillment. At a certain point, though, it becomes a moot point: the heckler’s practical impact is to impede discussion and degrade the quality of discourse. Regardless of any question of intentional vs unintentional, such destructive behavior needs to be controlled—by the moderator if not by the heckler himself.

By: pevo

pevo — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:30:33 +0000

I believe you gave an excellent definition of ‘troll’, or at least one variant. However, all of your analysis assumes that the subject *knows* what he is doing. What if he really is incapable of honest logical thought and discussion?

I think it is entirely possible that some (most?) people base their beliefs/views on emotion, which is to say they don’t really ‘base’ them on anything at all. To them, there is no conflict as long as no one is breaking whatever arbitrary rules their sub-culture happens to have accepted. Logic and reason are misunderstood obstacles to them, not something they understand but choose to ignore.

By: Hunt

Hunt — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:31:51 +0000

I’m beginning to think you have a point, since each time I ask cl a question, all I get back is the sound of crickets. Add to that the fact that he/she continues to harangue about an online “debate” when you’ve already politely declined and gave reasons for doing so — leads me to believe there’s an agenda here other than forthright discussion.

By: Dominic Saltarelli

Dominic Saltarelli — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:51:31 +0000

Well, that’s one way of saying “don’t feed the trolls”.

By: Tacroy

Tacroy — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:31:57 +0000

It should be noted that such a heckler doesn’t necessarily realize that this is what he’s doing. I would think that this sort of behavior is the natural result of someone trying to defend a vague and incoherent position against reason.

Also, a corollary: if a heckler self-identifies as being a member of group A, then no argument against the beliefs of group A will work – the heckler is obviously a member of some special, perhaps unnamed sub-group of A, which does not believe such things or which has a counter-argument that may contradict A.

By: 5keptical

5keptical — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:49:52 +0000

You’re not saying that the heckler is an intellectual coward are you? Shame on you!